61 considerations made later (infra paras. 232 to 235 and 238 to 251) indicate that they were insufficient256 or delayed. 230. Given the foregoing, particular aspects of the investigations of the various facts and the protection of family members must be examined. B.2.1. Investigation into Omeara Carrascal 231. The Court notes that, regarding the investigation into Omeara Carrascal, the Commission argued that the State has not carried out the following steps: planimetry, reconstruction of events and “identification of projectiles fired”. However, it did not explain how, in the specific case, such omissions would have harmed the investigation. The same can be said about the statements made by the representatives (supra para. 220). In addition, the Commission argued that the State delayed a medical report on the causes of death and a ballistics report. These acts, respectively, took place on February 12, 2004 and December 26, 2007.257 Although the Commission affirmed that the delay in carrying out these actions has a “direct impact” on the possible effectiveness, it did not indicate how such an “impact” would have affected the case. In view of this, the Court notes the State's considerations that the timing of these actions does not affect the identification of those responsible for the facts258 (supra footnote 243). This Court does not have evidence that allows it to conclude that, in the circumstances of the case, the omissions or delays alleged by the Commission and the representatives had a negative impact on the investigation. 232. However, in addition, in the investigation into Omeara Carrascal there were actions that were delayed. 233. Thus, although on January 29, 1999, the Prosecutor's Office requested information about police and military officials, in their communication of February of that year, the military authorities did not provide the requested information (supra para. 105), with no record that at that time they had taken further action to obtain it.259 Two years later, a group from the Expert witness González Amado pointed out that coordination must be real and effective, exchanging findings and results, determining the structure of responsible power; but he considered that in this case only simple inspections were shared, without data exchange or the reconstruction of a context. Cf. Expert opinion of Iván González Amado, supra. Regarding such inspections, it should be noted that said measure was highlighted by Colombia as the way in which "especially" the relationship between the different actions occurred. On the other hand, without prejudice to this Court’s assessment of the actions referred to by the witness Rosas Carreño. Statement of Diego Fernando Rosas Carreño, supra. Regarding the conversations between prosecutors, this Court notes that the expert witness González Amado indicated that a sufficient connection between the investigations requires that the exchange of information between prosecutors take place through "formal channels" of communication. Expert opinion of Iván González Amado, supra. 257 On the first date, the legal medical opinion was made on the clinical history of Omeara Carrascal, which establishes the causes of his death (Cf. File No. 397, Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, Bogotá Regional Office, Grupo of Forensic Thanatology, Extension No. 017-2004, Consecutive 123-03 of February 12, 2004, evidence file, answering brief, pages 5095 to 5097). On the second date, a ballistic opinion was given, which corresponds to the projectile found in the body of Mr. José Erminso Sepúlveda (Cf. File No. 397, Sectional Directorate of the Technical Investigation Corps, Scientific Research Laboratory, Ballistics Group, Investigative Report Laboratory FPJ-13 of December 26, 2007, evidence file, answering brief, pages 5167 to 5170). 258 The State explained that the moment these two procedures were carried out "does not imply [...] significant damage to the results of the investigations", since the task of "identifying those responsible for the events, [...] was not affected by the presumably late inclusion of the clinical history”, and given that “the ballistic study […] is delimited in a similar manner.” It clarified that "it is not required that this type of evidence be carried out as soon as possible in the procedure, under threat of losing its precision," and that "[t]he process focused on establishing the unit and the responsible persons, and only when this task was accomplished, would these other tests have been decisive.” 259 In this regard, it emerges from the facts that when on February 25, 1999, the Commander of Infantry No. 15 replied that he did not know who were members of the troops in Aguachica, he requested that the request for information be forwarded to the Counterguerrilla Battalion No. 27, but there is no evidence that this action, or any other, was carried out in order to obtain the information (supra footnote on page 82). 256